I was checking out Packer Update .. the dude over there pointed out that the Broncos added a slew of free agents this past year after bowing out of the playoffs quickly last season.

Wes Welker, Louis Vasquez, Terrance Knighton, Shaun Phillips, and Dominique Rodgers Cromartie. These guys were making an impact yesterday. Knighton and Phillips made some big plays in the clutch. They nailed these signing and it helped put them into the Super Bowl. I think the Packers need to take a look at widening their horizons when it comes to player acquisition.

And no... I don't think the coaching staff needs to be fired. Our staff has been getting systematically poached now for a few years running in McKenzie, Philbin, McAdoo... If you don't think these hurt continuity, the product on the field will show otherwise. Some of the development of the players may be hurt by our "Hire from within" strategy. We need to do some poaching of our own._________________

I was checking out Packer Update .. the dude over there pointed out that the Broncos added a slew of free agents this past year after bowing out of the playoffs quickly last season.

Wes Welker, Louis Vasquez, Terrance Knighton, Shaun Phillips, and Dominique Rodgers Cromartie. These guys were making an impact yesterday. Knighton and Phillips made some big plays in the clutch. They nailed these signing and it helped put them into the Super Bowl. I think the Packers need to take a look at widening their horizons when it comes to player acquisition.

The difference is the Packers are built to be sustained long term, the Broncos are built to win in a very short window. That allows them to backload contracts and sign players now, but in a few years they'll be in rough shape cap wise.

I can't speak specifically to each one of those contracts Denver signed.

However the way NFL contracts work is bonuses are amortized over the lesser of five years or life of the contract, meaning the cash flows wouldn't match the cap hit. That allows players to receive money up front and teams have relatively low cap hits.

Backloaded specifically would mean that there would be a year with a high cap hit that would either have to be restructured to spread out the hit or be cut, but then you could run into dead cap.

I'm understand the basics of NFL contracts but I know there are guys who understand it a lot better than me on this forum so if I'm off somewhere I'm sure someone around here could correct me.

And no... I don't think the coaching staff needs to be fired. Our staff has been getting systematically poached now for a few years running in McKenzie, Philbin, McAdoo... If you don't think these hurt continuity, the product on the field will show otherwise. Some of the development of the players may be hurt by our "Hire from within" strategy. We need to do some poaching of our own.

Who on the defensive staff has been poached? Nobody. Theres probably a reason for that, like the fact that the D has sucked 3 years in a row.

And no... I don't think the coaching staff needs to be fired. Our staff has been getting systematically poached now for a few years running in McKenzie, Philbin, McAdoo... If you don't think these hurt continuity, the product on the field will show otherwise. Some of the development of the players may be hurt by our "Hire from within" strategy. We need to do some poaching of our own.

Who on the defensive staff has been poached? Nobody. Theres probably a reason for that, like the fact that the D has sucked 3 years in a row.

Yup. No improvement on D and positional coaches lured away on O all while promoting from within. And if you were upset at how one-sided this team has looked in the past, it's better than being no-sided in the future. God forbid we promote the waterboy to QB coach & start tinkering with Aarons mechanics. Get qualified guys for the job and KEEP them._________________

The author of the article and the poster who posted it don't seem to know much about elite and staying there. Obviously it doesn't mean these will happen but we're still recognized by most as an elite franchise that can challenge year in and year out for a SB. Sure it's because we have an Elite QB. All it takes is a couple pieces here and there and boom your the team.

There seems to be an ongoing debate over whether the poor play of the defense is coaching or mediocre players. Maybe one way to decide is to look at players that have left the Packers for other teams? If it's bad coaching, then ON THE AVERAGE ex-Packers should get better when they go to other teams and get better coaching. If it's mediocre players, then better coaching on another team shouldn't matter much. In fact, one could look at all positions to judge Packer position coaches, I think. Can anyone give a review?
How did Woodson do this year?
Giacomini now starts for the Seahawks, but was a dud with the Packers.
Does Barbre start for the Eagles? He didn't do much with the Packers.
Ross looked great in Detroit, but was bad in Green Bay.
Any other examples, or counter examples?
I don't know if this will settle the debate, but it may provide some grist for the mill!

There seems to be an ongoing debate over whether the poor play of the defense is coaching or mediocre players. Maybe one way to decide is to look at players that have left the Packers for other teams? If it's bad coaching, then ON THE AVERAGE ex-Packers should get better when they go to other teams and get better coaching. If it's mediocre players, then better coaching on another team shouldn't matter much. In fact, one could look at all positions to judge Packer position coaches, I think. Can anyone give a review?
How did Woodson do this year?
Giacomini now starts for the Seahawks, but was a dud with the Packers.
Does Barbre start for the Eagles? He didn't do much with the Packers.
Ross looked great in Detroit, but was bad in Green Bay.
Any other examples, or counter examples?
I don't know if this will settle the debate, but it may provide some grist for the mill!

Woodson was mediocre at best in Oakland. Maybe better than who was playing in Green Bay until you start looking at the money of it.

Giacomini took too long to develop and ran out of chances. It took him a while in Seattle too to come around and part of that was suffering through playing him while he struggled greatly.

Barbre might, he's an OK utility OL. I would bet he's always the kind of guy you want to replace.

Ross looked good in GB too. That's why he got a shot. Fact is he made too many bonehead mistakes on when to come out of the endzone and dropping the ball. That's a player issue not a coaching one.

None of these really make any coherent point one way or the other._________________

Wilfred wrote:

Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.

Got to look for patterns. Maybe in reality the sample size is too small to see a pattern. But let's say 5 offensive linemen left Green Bay and were playing poorly when they left. Let's say they all caught on with other teams and 4 of them developed into pretty good starters and one was cut again and is out of football for good. One might conclude based on that pattern that the offensive line coach in Green Bay wasn't doing a very good job (not saying he is or isn't, just using this as an example in the thought experiment).

Got to look for patterns. Maybe in reality the sample size is too small to see a pattern. But let's say 5 offensive linemen left Green Bay and were playing poorly when they left. Let's say they all caught on with other teams and 4 of them developed into pretty good starters and one was cut again and is out of football for good. One might conclude based on that pattern that the offensive line coach in Green Bay wasn't doing a very good job (not saying he is or isn't, just using this as an example in the thought experiment).

Not really conclusive. For one thing you're right it is a small sample size, but for another, what about Daryn Colledge? Jason Spitz? Tony Moll? ect. Guys who went elsewhere and performed the same or worse than they did in GB? Fact is, the Packers have drafted fairly well so the guys that don't make the cut here have had chances to stick and get more time to develop on other rosters. When you are limited to 53 you can't hang on to too many guys as long term developmental projects without sacrificing depth, and when you have as many injury issues as the Packers have had, you need guys that can play now, not later._________________

Wilfred wrote:

Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.

You can't be overly dependent on the draft like Green Bay has. Conversely, you can't be overly dependent on FA signings. There has be a healthy medium. Just blowing off the entire FA market does this organization no favors. This article is spot-on.

Yup, there may be too many confounding factors to use a simple analysis like that, but the fact that for guys that leave, some get better and some don't tells me our coaches are probably competent NFL coches. That may mean the players brought in aren't as good as other teams. Again, many confounding factors, but drafting at or near the end of each round for many years may be having an eroding effect on overall roster quality. That's the idea, I guess, give the losing teams a chance. The way around the draft is free agency, but that is a way frought with dangers too. I've been reading in the newspaper that this may be the year for the Packers to delve into free agency. Who knows? This may be a Woodson/Pickett type year in free agency.